Big Bend new front in pollution fight

By Matthew Tresaugue | Houston Chronicle

Published 2:21 pm, Sunday, November 30, 2014

Photo: ERIC GAY

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

A turkey buzzard swoops in front of haze-distorted mountains at Big Bend National Park, Texas, Thursday, Sept. 2, 1999. The once-pristine park, 300 miles from El Paso, the nearest major city, and so remote that not a single FM radio station comes in clearly - today is as smoggy as some urban areas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) less

A turkey buzzard swoops in front of haze-distorted mountains at Big Bend National Park, Texas, Thursday, Sept. 2, 1999. The once-pristine park, 300 miles from El Paso, the nearest major city, and so remote that ... more

Photo: ERIC GAY

Big Bend new front in pollution fight

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Federal regulators are taking their fight with Texas over pollution from coal-fired power plants to an unlikely new front: Big Bend National Park.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday proposed costly new scrubbers and other pollution controls at eight coal plants in an attempt to restore natural visibility on federal lands, including Big Bend, whose majestic vistas have been steadily obscured by a hazy smear of smog and soot.

The decision comes more than five years after the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality set the year 2155 as a target for returning clear skies to the parks. The state’s plan, which the EPA rejected, did not require any new controls for the plants — a primary source of haze-forming sulfur dioxide — because of the potential price tag.

While the EPA touted the public-health benefits of its latest plan, it was based on a section of the Clean Air Act that provides the exceptionally remote Big Bend and other national parks with the highest level of protection for air quality.

Deep in a southwestern corner of Texas, Big Bend’s rugged beauty was once visible from as far away as 100 miles. These days pollution from diesel trucks, coal-fired power plants and crop-clearing fires in Mexico is reducing visibility in the park.

The TCEQ blames sources south of the Rio Grande for more than half of the dirty air on Big Bend’s haziest days. The agency sent a federally mandated plan to the EPA that doesn’t require the state’s power generators to make any cuts in emissions of sulfur dioxide.

“We only have so much flexibility,” then-TCEQ Chairman Buddy Garcia said at the time, adding that the plan is the best the EPA would get from the state agency.

The TCEQ said the plan would remove the haze from Big Bend by 2155, missing the federal goal by 91 years. Even then, the EPA’s analysis found that natural visibility wouldn’t return to the iconic park before 2207 under the state’s plan.

The EPA said its plan would bring blue skies to the park at least 20 years before the state’s proposal would. But that means the federal goals still won’t be met for generations.

Beyond bringing clear views back to national parks, the EPA’s plan is a way for the agency to get desired pollution cuts from Texas, the nation’s top coal-burning state. Texas is suing the EPA over another federal rule that would sharply reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from the state’s oldest and dirtiest power plants.

The proposal would scrub about 230,000 tons of sulfur dioxide from the Texas skies — about the same amount that would be removed by the hotly contested Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is before a federal appeals court.

“The pollution control technologies are the same, but EPA will exceed the cross-state rule with this plan,” said Tom Smith, the Texas director of Public Citizen, which is pushing state officials to drop coal in favor of renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

The TCEQ criticized its own clean-air plan as “somewhat of a charade” before approving it in 2009. But it found fault with the EPA’s alternative, saying the federal plan would cost utilities more than $2 billion without a noticeable improvement in visibility at the national parks.

The commission said in a statement that the costs of the EPA’s 267-page plan “would invariably be passed on to consumers, either directly or indirectly, and could have consequential impacts on the state’s power grid.”

Some companies may decide to retire older plants rather than invest in new control measures, experts said. The proposal covers coal-fired plants operated by Luminant, NRG Texas Power, Coleto Creek Power, San Miguel Electric Cooperative and Xcel Energy.

Luminant, the state’s largest power generator, was reviewing how the EPA’s plan would affect its four plants, company spokesman Brad Watson said.

In recent years, the EPA has taken aim at emissions from coal-fired power plants that cause smog and soot. Sulfur dioxide, also a source of acid rain, is linked to lung disease and early death.

The other two national parks covered by the new proposal are Guadalupe Mountains National Park in West Texas and Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma.

The plan doesn’t require any additional pollution cuts from Oklahoma’s coal plants because the state submitted an acceptable clean-air proposal, the EPA said.

The agency will take public comments on its proposal for 60 days before making a final decision next year.

“This isn’t new stuff,” said Smith, the renewable energy advocate. “They’ve known for years that this day would come. Texas opted out of making a thoughtful plan, so the EPA had to step in.”